Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Jackman, 621 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Jackman, 621 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Devereux Fla. Treatment Network v. Mcintosh, 940 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
How cited ↗
Cited for
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
Roger E. JACKMAN and Brower-Jackman Insurance Agency, Inc.
No. 93-00464.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Jul 9, 1993.
Published opinion
621 So. 2d 531
1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 7309
1993 WL 247119
W. Lane Neilson of Neilson and Associates, Tampa, for petitioner., Frank C. Alderman, III of Alderman & Ahlbrand, P.A., Fort Myers, for respondents.
Altenbernd, Danahy, Frank.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (Ohio Casualty), seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order denying its motion for protective order. The order compels two of Ohio Casualty’s out-of-state employees to appear in Florida for their depositions and to bring with them specified documents. We uphold the order insofar as it requires Ohio Casualty to produce the deponents in Florida but quash that part directing the production of documents.

Based on this record, we cannot say that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in requiring Ohio Casualty to produce the nonresident individuals for deposition in Florida. The document production, however, is a different matter. Ohio Casualty’s timely motion for protective order asserted objections based on work product and attorney-client privilege.[1] The trial court’s order failed to address the objections and thereby protect the production of the privileged documents. Hence, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in compelling production of all the documents requested.

Accordingly, we grant the petition in part and deny the petition in part. On remand, the trial court should address the cost issue previously raised by the parties.

FRANK, C.J., and DANAHY and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
1

The deposition notices, which were titled "duc-es tecum,” scheduled the depositions for fewer than thirty days from the date of service of the notices. Ohio Casualty should have been afforded thirty days to submit written objections to what was essentially a document request. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.350. We do not condone any practice that attempts to circumvent the time frames and procedures set forth in the rules.